.

Should Stow City Council Lease to PEP Drilling Company?

At the end of the day, drilling utilizes scarce resources to extract scarce resources. Is this something Stow residents want in their backyard?

I attended the public hearing in Stow on Monday July 23, 2012.  This was my first experience at Stow City Council and I felt the structure of the meeting was superb.  It made me wish that the council times were a little more convenient for us working parents.  I’m not certain where council stands on the issue of drilling.  They said they were going to draw up the contract with the company and council mentioned something about voting on August 2.  Hopefully they choose to be more forthcoming about their decision in the near future.

  He didn’t cover the hearing too much, but he did address the budget (another huge concern for residents of Stow).  Since I attended the hearing, however, I’d like to clear up a few things.  There was a great deal of Stow residents who spoke up against the drilling (I was one of them).  After talking to some other Stow residents in attendance, it was agreed approximately 2/3rds of those who were opposed were Stow residents. There were about 4 people who spoke for the drilling: The New Hope Church pastor, a resident, and two representatives from PEP (the drilling company). 

The Church sees drilling as means of earning more money and a way to lower their gas expenses.  In a struggling economy with a smaller congregation, this is a way they could take some burden off their congregation and still afford to operate.  They assured residents they haven’t had any problems with contamination at the well on their property.

Another resident who is for the well and the city leasing the mineral rights was not concerned in the slightest about drilling.  He felt there are enough problems with the city water supply- such as the fluoridation of the water supply (true—but a different argument all together).  In his eyes, the contamination to water couldn’t possibly be any worse and we shouldn’t be drinking city water anyway.

As for those who spoke against drilling that were from neighboring cities—the small group that travels city-to-city (Portage and Summit County) are from Shallersville.  They disclosed to council why they do this, and it's because they don’t want other cities to make industry-informed decisions, but rather informed decisions.  Information has to come from more than one source.

Other residents from other cities included Hudson (1), Kent (1), and Akron (1).  The one woman from Kent paid Stow taxes, just has a Kent mailing address-- so we should consider her a Stow resident.  Those in attendance from other cities said they were concerned because drilling is not limited to Stow.  Air travels and water travels, it’s not like we can build a bubble around the city and should contamination occur it would be limited to our city.  Neighboring cities such as Kent and Hudson have turned down drilling! So of course they’re concerned if we’re going to allow it.

One Stow woman had some questions for council: she wanted to know the company’s history.  Council couldn’t answer her question, they weren’t sure what kind of record PEP had.  You see; ODNR has cited this company with several pollution/contamination violations in Portage and Cuyahoga counties .  One would think that would be a first move for council to examine a company's track record considering council's concern is supposed to be to protect the citizens of their city.  This woman didn’t particularly have a stance on the issue: she just wanted more information about it. Something I hope all who spoke were able to provide her with.

The mayor did say she attended a meeting where a geologist spoke and felt residents needed to view his speech.  She said she would make the video publically available in the near future.  I hope the geologist was not affiliated with industry—It’s thus, not “unbiased”, it’s industry biased.  I see it all the time.  Tim McDonnell recently wrote an article: Smelling a Leak: Is the Natural Gas Industry Buying Academics?:

“It’s hard to find someone who’s truly independent and doesn’t have at least one iron in the fire,” said Ohio oil-and-gas-lease attorney Mark F. Okey. “It’s a good ol’ boys network and they like to take care of their own.”

Richard Muller, a long time denier of human caused climate change recently came out and said the science is there that proves our planet is warming and humans are the primary culprits.  While natural gas is touted as a clean burning fuel, to pretend that it has no impact on the emissions we put into the air is completely bogus.  So while those opposed to fracking typically discuss the worst-case scenario contamination, it’s also important to mention that everyday drilling impacts global warming.  What is Stow doing to reduce its carbon emissions?  Drilling definitely would not.

At the council meeting, several Stow residents expressed concern for contamination, property values, and taxpayer costs.  Nationwide homeowner’s insurance does not cover damages related to fracking .  According to the Ohio Oil & Gas Association, 99% of all wells utilize a chemical compound to stimulate— “frack”.  Many companies will not issue mortgages on properties on or around active well sites.  So essentially, these properties have no value.  What does that mean for other properties?  Their values drop as well.   A real estate agent of 25-years explained to council how this process affects home values and how difficult it is to sell a home near a well.

The contamination concerns are no joke either.  Ohio is rich in a toxic VOC: hydrogen sulfide (H2S).   H2S is corrosive to steel, highly toxic, and even deadly.  It killed a gas worked in 2009 in Ohio.  Do we want this getting into our air?  (Especially considering THERE IS A DAYCARE AT THIS CHURCH and schools nearby).

The mayor did state that the city has an evacuation plan should air contamination occur.  She was not sure if the fire department had a H2S sensitive air monitor.  This is something the city should invest in before allowing drilling to take place, should council choose to ignore the majority of residents present at the meeting (opposed to fracking) and drill anyway.

One thing I think more citizens should be concerned with, relating to the drilling leases is this: These leases are written by the companies looking to lease the land.  Imagine if a tenant went to the landlord with the lease, paid the security deposit, and only paid you a percentage of the money they were able to earn from the location.  Ha!  So why is it different with oil and gas industry?

The royalties are often paid based on the current market value of natural gas.  As of 07/25/12 natural gas was at $3.39 per thousand cubic feet.  According to Zacks Equity Research Firm , this percentage is down another 27.4% compared to this time in 2011.  Council indicated that they would be getting a 12.5% royalty—They did not specify whether or not it was a 12.5% of the Church’s royalty or of total production.  Either way, 12.5% of $3.39 is $0.42.  

It would be interesting to know the projected production figures for the well to develop a better understanding of the amount of revenue the city could gain for exposing the residents to the health, environmental, and economic risks associated with natural gas.  Additionally, how much of the earnings would be set aside if contamination were to occur or for depleting property values as a result of driling?

According to a Penn State University study in conjunction with a financial firm, a well will produce the most it ever will in the initial drill.  There will be a sharp decline afterwards (obtain your copy here ).  So the first monthly royalty will be the most the landowner will ever see from the royalty.   At the end of the day, how much does Stow stand to gain?

Let us keep in mind the damages caused by drilling as far as contamination is concerned are irreversible.  The amount of water utilized in the drilling process is chilling.  At the end of the day, drilling uses scarce resources to extract scarce resources.  How long until the water we drink is as expensive as the gas we put in the car?

There are several known carcinogens in fracking fluid.  While Ohio claims that chemicals are made public, there are still chemical mixes that are considered “proprietary”.  Just look at the industry sponsored website that discloses the chemicals in the fluid, “proprietary” is listed way more than once.

This industry has not been honest, they don’t perform an honest operation, and any errors often fall burden to the taxpayer: not the industry.  20-years later the planet is still feeling the effects of the Exxon spill .  The landowner can be sued for any problems that arise on other properties related to the drilling: after all, the company is just leasing the land.  Think you can get enough money out of your neighbor to cover the costs of your damages? A church that can't afford to keep their operations running most certainly cannot cover the costs of damages that may occur from fracking.  You should probably check with the company that provides your homeowner's insurance to see if they cover damages.

New legislation such as Ohio SB 315 requires companies to disclose the additives.  The company is required to state the name of the chemical additive, but some ingredients are considering "proprietary"-- Trade secrets (see picture or view the website yourself where companies disclose fracking chemicals ). This shouldn't be a big surprise considering the industry is working with the same PR firm as big tobacco.  Remember cigarettes don't kill?  Well, gas wells don't leak .

To add insult to injury, SB 315 states :

"(H)(1) If a medical professional, in order to assist in the diagnosis or treatment of an individual who was affected by an incident associated with the production operations of a well, requests the exact chemical composition of each product, fluid, or substance and of each chemical component in a product, fluid, or substance that is designated as a trade secret pursuant to division (I) of this section, the person claiming the trade secret protection pursuant to that division shall provide to the medical professional the exact chemical composition of the product, fluid, or substance and of the chemical component in a product, fluid, or substance that is requested.

(2) A medical professional who receives information pursuant to division (H)(1) of this section shall keep the information confidential and shall not disclose the information for any purpose that is not related to the diagnosis or treatment of an individual who was affected by an incident associate with the production operations of a well."

There are several websites available that have documented, peer-reviewed research of the health risks.  Finkel (PhD) and Law (MD) (2011) wrote an article addressing health concerns and concluded that a pause should be placed on all drilling practices until further research is performed.  They write, “Material Safety Data Sheets for 41 products used in fracturing operations, assessed the chemicals used in fracturing and found that 73% of the products had between 6 and 14 different adverse health effects including skin, eye, and sensory organ damage; respiratory distress including asthma; gastrointestinal and liver disease; brain and nervous system harms; cancers; and negative reproductive effects.” (1)

I personally urge council to vote down the leasing of mineral rights to PEP drilling company and to fill the well.  We do not need any adverse affects on our community, nor the traffic associated with it.  Our health is not something to put a price tag on.  Our communities should seek to invest in sustainable energy, because with sustainable energy we can build sustainable jobs and create a basis for a sustainable economic future.

(1) Finkel, M. L. PhD, and Law, A. MD (2011). "Drill for Natural Gas: A Public Health Cautionary Tale".  American Journal of Public Health.  Vol. 101, No. 5.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Elyse July 31, 2012 at 01:51 PM
UPDATE: Editor, Amanda Harnocz als covered this issue, check it out here: http://stow.patch.com/articles/decision-on-gas-well-at-church-opposed-by-residents-won-t-come-for-weeks She states that the issue will be back on the table the week of August 6.
Colleen August 01, 2012 at 01:27 AM
I live 3 miles away from the proposed gas well. I am concerned about the impact this will have on my family's drinking well. This seems like a really bad idea!
Sharon J. Carlisle August 01, 2012 at 01:48 AM
Eylse. I live in Loveland Colorado where we are facing the same issues that you, and most of the country, are now facing with the poisonous process known as fracking. FYI - our governor just went to Detroit to sign a memorandum with the three major auto companies that pledges "our" support of the industries upcoming auto's, fueled by natural gas, because it will "...create new demand for domestically-produced natural gas". Ohio was reported as one of thirteen states that are on board with this. Its going to get worse, much worse, before it gets better. Thanks for getting the info. out there to people who have no idea what's being done to their air, water, land...and country, in the name of "clean" energy extraction. sic
jiim may August 01, 2012 at 10:30 AM
come on fracking!!!!!!!!! we need it
jiim may August 01, 2012 at 10:32 AM
sharon, dont worry about us!!!! keep your nose in your back yard
Meg Griffin August 01, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Very informative, thank you!
Elyse August 01, 2012 at 03:46 PM
Colleen, I live less than a mile away and while my residence does not have well, I'm super worried about the emissions. There are young children around this well and I think it's pretty disgusting that it's even a consideration. It's sad when society can put a price tag on their children's health.
Elyse August 01, 2012 at 03:49 PM
Wow, thank you for sharing Sharon. That's so unfortunate... And to think we could utilize other resources fuel. I'm so impressed with Germany's efforts with solar and wind energy, I'd love to see our country get on board. I remember reading something a while back about GE taking state bids for their solar plant. If memory serves me correctly, I believe Colorado got this bid. To me, that's a better step in the right direction. Ohio, so engulfed with industry did not even place a bid. It's sad.
Elyse August 01, 2012 at 03:49 PM
You're welcome: tell your friends! Ha ha :)
Elyse August 01, 2012 at 03:53 PM
Jim, I've seen several of your posts across various fracking debates and you've hardly provided an explanation as to why we need it. Jobs? Do you really think with such a technical process you're going to see a bunch of new direct jobs from industry? Additionally, oil and gas workers have some of the worst health when compared to other industries. Outdoor parks and recreation jobs outnumbered oil and gas jobs 3-1! I'm not going to deny some of the indirect jobs that come from the industry, but I will not condone them because they're not sustainable. What's going to happen when all the gas is gone and the state is facing climate crises, contamination, and more. There are already several cases of contamination in Ohio alone. I hope you actually took the time to read this blog and follow the resources, they may change your attitude towards this disgusting process.
Cindy August 01, 2012 at 05:45 PM
Elyse, You talk about industry bias throughout this discussion...almost all of your commenters are anti-drilling. Water well contamination due to fracking is a rare exception. There are hundreds of wells around Stow...no reports of water well contamination. There are gas and oils wells around Lake Rockwell Resevoir and a few were drilled IN the resevoir. Lake Rockwell supplies all the water to Akron...no contamination. All water wells around a drill site must be tested by an EPA sanctioned lab before any drilling begins (HB 278). In the rare event a water well is contaminated, the ODNR has strict measures in place that must be adhered to by the Operator of the well to correct the problem, no matter what the cost. In response to the suggestion of wind power. Windmills have a much larger footprint than a gas and oil pump jack. They heat the ground so that nothing can grow beneath them and they kill a large number of birds. Not to mention the noise that scares most wildlife away from the area and is a nuisance to people living nearby. Natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel we have - it leaves virtually no carbon. It is much more desirable than coal or oil. The emissions from automobiles using natural gas are practically non-existent. The City of Hudson's school buses are running on natural gas. There are dangers to the children of Stow and every community in the country, oil and gas wells are not one of them. Cindy - educated reader
Elyse August 01, 2012 at 06:17 PM
Cindy: a well recently killed a 19-year-old boy in Bolivar. What do you mean their not a danger to children-- or people, rather? And the emissions from the production are horrendous, not to mention the toxic chemicals placed in the water that is used to fracture the well. While there are busses and other vehicles operating on natural gas, it doesn't mean we should continue because it is a NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCE, so we'll be placing ourselves in the same situation further down the road (rising natural gas fuel costs). The amount of water used in the process is horrendous. Look at the droughts we have been having across the country, the wildfires. How are we going to tell people that they have to watch their water consumption, meanwhile industry is using millions and millions of gallons to fracture a single well? If you could, please provide a reference to your claim that natural gas makes a smaller impact than wind. I would be interested to read that. When it comes to natural gas extraction... I'm talking about the whole cycle: water impacts, chemical spills and accidents, air impacts, the NG power plants, pipelines, migratory contaminantcs, green house gasses, transportation and even the sand/silaca mined and shipped. As for the commenters, I cannot control what other people post.
Elyse August 01, 2012 at 06:21 PM
And please forgive the typos in my previous response. I was in a bit of a rush. They're*, contaminants*... I'm sure there are more.
CiCi August 01, 2012 at 06:44 PM
Elyse, In response to your comment regarding the carbon footprint of wind energy. Have you considered the large cranes needed for assembly, the strong, wide, long roads that must be paved (making them permanent) to get these cranes back to the location, the amount of land that must be completely cleared so that the blades on the wind turbines can spin freely, the number of birds killed and other wildlife scared away? The foot print for ONE turbine can exceed a full acre of cleared land. Trees gone, wildlife gone. Clearly you can agree that the footprint of a natural gas well is no where near as large. A stone or dirt road is all that is needed, not very long or wide. Trees removed during the construction process can be replanted within a certain distance, wildlife can return to the area after the well is in place. None of that can occur with wind energy.
Elyse August 01, 2012 at 07:00 PM
CiCi, I'm not quite sure where all this wind talk is coming from. I don't recall writing too much about it. I referred to solar and wind developments in Germany in a comment. What I do know about wind energy is this: there is evidence that they circulate air improving crop yields. As for natural gas, spills lead to IRREVERSIBLE damage, which means... No more crop yields. I really enjoy how you and Cindy have shifted the focus of the discussion to the problems with wind energy... Which is undeniably cleaner than natural gas. It's not a perfect energy source by any means, not saying that there isn't a need for backup methods. But research and developments in green energies are very promising. Imagine if renewable energies got the same amount of subsidies as oil, gas, and nuclear. "Energy industries have enjoyed a century of federal support. From 1918 to 2009, the oil and gas industry received $446.96 billion (adjusted for inflation) in cumulative energy subsidies. Renewable energy sources received $5.93 billion (adjusted for inflation) for a much shorter period from 1994-2009." http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Subsidies-For-Oil-Gas-Nuclear-vs.-Renewables/
Elyse August 01, 2012 at 07:08 PM
And aren't some wind turbines on water? I don't think they put roads into the water... Nor do I think they are ripping out any trees to achieve that. Check this out: A French scientist created a wind turbine that produces clean drinking water from thin air: http://www.businessinsider.com/new-wind-turbine-creates-drinking-water-from-humid-air-2012-5?op=1
Clay August 01, 2012 at 07:19 PM
CiCi, Have you ever seen a wind turbine emit benzene or volatile organic compounds? Much of the natural gas from fracking is sent to Alberta to boil tair sands, and to make the tar sands bitumen more viscous. Tar Sands, an area the size of Florida, is a major migratory breeding bird area, an area supporting more than 166 million breeding birds. Here is a paper detailing wind energies effects on wildlife, versus other forms of energy. http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/cms/jfirestone/MBTA-LawPaper-MBandJF-accepted.pdf Also, Here is a paper detailing the effects of hydrogen sulfide exposure, which stow sits atop of. Make sure you know which way the wind is blowing in case of a well blowout. Immediate exposure of H2S of 750 ppm causes immediate unconsciousness leading to death. http://erg.berkeley.edu/people/Lana%20Skrtic%20-%20Masters%20Paper%20H2S%20and%20Health.pdf
Cindy August 01, 2012 at 07:57 PM
Elyse, In reference to the 19-year old man who was killed in Bolivar recently-that is called an industry accident - a horrific accident. This hardworking young man was the well operator's son. There are more accidents in the highway industry, fishing industry, timber industry (just to name a few) annually than the oil and gas industry. The deaths in the oil and gas industry are virtually all workers, not children. Should we not pave highways, eat fish or use wood because of this danger to people? (Google 10 most deadly jobs). Without the oil and gas industry we would save a lot of lives because there would be no paved roads, fuel for vehicles to drive on the paved roads. Petroleum products are used in medicines, fabrics, flooring, fertilizers, your makeup and many more...including the plastics used to make your keyboard and computer. Maybe you should do a little more research on the benefits derived from oil and gas products. The water used in fracking a Clinton well is taken from nearby streams or ponds, if none are near it is trucked in. It is ~126,000 gallons of water, not millions. Where do you think the components to the windmills are produced. They are made of aluminum or steel. What is the environmental consequence of the manufacturing involved? What do you think runs the machinery in the manufacturing plant. Natural gas is a non-renewable resource, but we need a "bridge" an alternative until renewable sources of energy can be developed.
Cindy August 01, 2012 at 08:14 PM
Elyse, You wanted a reference for my statements regarding wind turbines. I have several internet articles. NY Times, Wednesday, August 1, 2012 Environmental Section Huff Post Wednesday, August 1, 2012 Green Section Wind Power Syndrome Clean Energy Ideas - Wind Turbines
Elyse August 01, 2012 at 08:49 PM
For this particular well, 126,000 gallons: That's still a ton of water! Unconventional drilling utilizes millions. I understand there are other dangerous jobs out there and no that doesn't mean we have to stop them. But you said: "There are dangers to the children of Stow and every community in the country, oil and gas wells are not one of them." Yes, I know, other industries have death rates too, but to say oil and gas wells are not a danger is inaccurate. To ignore the H2S that is emitted in the air as a result of oil and gas development and worker's chronic exposure to such toxic VOCs is foolish. I urge you to read this publication about H2S: http://erg.berkeley.edu/people/Lana%20Skrtic%20-%20Masters%20Paper%20H2S%20and%20Health.pdf H2S is emitted through several stages of the oil and gas operation (both routinely and accidentally): the extraction, storage, transport, and processing stages. Willingly exposing communities to this is wrong. Even at low concentrations it can cause problems: .0057ppm: headaches, migraines, nasal problems..(community/chronic exposure). .1ppm-1: abnormal balance w/ closed eyes, delayed verbal recall (see pg. 13). As for manufacturing, newer plants have better stacks to reduce emissions. I'm sure we could improve the technology there as well. As you've made abundantly clear, there's enough emissions to worry about elsewhere: So why should we add more?
Elyse August 01, 2012 at 08:53 PM
Thank you for the feedback Clay... I just noticed, I shared the same paper as you (Skrtic). I don't understand how CiCi and Cindy can talk about environmental hazards in other industries and turn a blind-eye to the natural gas industry extraction process.. And even talk as if the two are comparable.
Elyse August 01, 2012 at 09:06 PM
Please provide links. I know some of the pros and cons of the wind turbines (small in comparison to natural gas development). You said: "In response to the suggestion of wind power. Windmills have a much larger footprint than a gas and oil pump jack. They heat the ground so that nothing can grow beneath them and they kill a large number of birds. Not to mention the noise that scares most wildlife away from the area and is a nuisance to people living nearby." There are bird deaths, but scientists have also found ways to move them out of migration paths. The aesthetics and the sounds. Comparing the development of wind turbines to natural gas extraction is ridiculous. The damages are irreversible. "“The wind turbines do not create a net warming of the air and instead only re-distribute the air’s heat near the surface, which is fundamentally different from the large-scale warming effect caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases,” says Zhou. This action of warm air being recirculated downwards by the moving turbine blades is well known to farmers. Citrus growers use big fans to protect crops from frost. Hot air rises. Farmers use large fans to bring it back down to warm near the ground. Similarly, these citrus growers’ fans “do not create a net warming of the air” they recirculate air that is warmer to begin with." http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/01/study-finds-wind-farms-circulate-hot-air/
Elyse August 01, 2012 at 09:10 PM
Here's another interesting read: "The “Recession-Busting” EU Wind Energy Industry Spurring development of offshore wind is taking on even greater significance in Europe, as the 17-nation euro zone faces record-high unemployment, its second recession in three years and persistent government deficit and debt problems. Employment in the EU’s wind energy industry will reach 520,000 by 2020 and 795,000 by 2030 if EU governments continue to keep key renewable energy policies and incentives in place, according to the European Wind Energy Association’s “Green Growth” report." http://cleantechnica.com/2012/04/16/france-economy-environment-come-out-ahead-in-historic-first-offshore-wind-tender/
Elyse August 01, 2012 at 09:15 PM
And one more thing: how many animal deaths are caused due to oil spills, brine spills, etc. etc.? So... some birds and bats are killed by wind turbines, which scientists are trying to better control for VS.... oil and gas--- land, water, air contaminations leading to the deaths of how many animals (and people)? Logic suggests wind is a much safer alternative. Solar... They're not perfect, but we need to get more money into better, renewable energy sources without putting the health of the earth's inhabitants at risk, period.
jiim may August 03, 2012 at 02:54 PM
do you really think the earth will be around forever!!! worrie about now and forget forever!!!!!!!!
Elyse August 05, 2012 at 03:09 PM
I worry about the earth today because I care about the planet we are leaving behind for generations to come. Today is in our hands.
peyton March 25, 2013 at 01:19 AM
elyse .... im a 21 year oilfield veteran . and the drilling an fracking is a good thing for the ohio economy it brings jobs security prosperity to the state what do you no about the oil field just numbers and big words sounds like to me . don't knock the oilfield you like gas in your car and lights in your home don't you and your fancy make up and fancy nail polish and your fancy hair stuff well duh were do you think that stuff is made from .... prissy women keep your snobby noses out of the oil field and worry about your makeup and tampons and your nail polish that's all you need to be concerned with .. the ohio shale is a great thing for this economy and its working boys trying to better there lives and there familes .. so keep your prissy nose out of a real mans job. ...
Castor Troy March 25, 2013 at 03:18 AM
A real man wouldn't necro this thread with such useless garbage. The fact that we are still getting energy by destroying and contaminating the earth is pretty sad. I think years of working around noxious fumes has effected your brain cells. Fortunately those cells will regenerate, but you should probably lay off the moonshine.
Elyse March 27, 2013 at 01:38 PM
It really hasn't been that great for the Ohio Economy. A recent report indicated that there has been a spending surge in Ohio in 2012, but not many new jobs: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/03/ohio_shale_gas_development_pro.html Even by Gov. Kasich's own admission- there are far more out of state workers and he has been concerned about the number of jobs Ohioans are receiving. Not to mention, it's not "job security" because oil and gas are not renewable resources. "Non-renewable" implies that they will not be around forever so what happens when it runs out? Figure it out as we go? Pawn it off to the next generation to figure out? So you're not really "bettering" anyone's life by perpetuating a dirty industry as Castor talked about those "noxious fumes"... Not to mention all the byproducts of the activity (waste produced, the amount of trucks needed to facilitate it, etc.). As for your comments: "...prissy women keep your snobby noses out of the oil field and worry about your makeup and tampons and your nail polish that's all you need to be concerned with.." That's extremely sexist and ignorant. When you have to result to insulting and/or degrading others.. It just shows how shaky your own position is.
Lisa DeSantis March 27, 2013 at 02:44 PM
Making the Oil Industry look like a Giant Clown Shoe, one post at a time.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »